[UPDATED] DM's Guild No Longer Allows Creator Logos On Product Covers

The Dungeon Master's Guild - the WotC/DTRPG-run storefront where fans can sell their own D&D content - has updated it terms to clarify that creators cannot put their own logos on the covers of their products. The only permitted logo is the DM's Guild logo itself.

The Dungeon Master's Guild - the WotC/DTRPG-run storefront where fans can sell their own D&D content - has updated it terms to clarify that creators cannot put their own logos on the covers of their products. The only permitted logo is the DM's Guild logo itself.

DMsGuildProductLogoLarge.png



It should be noted that creators can still put their own logo inside their products. The DMs Guild terms have been updated to reflect this.

Can I use the D&D logo on my DMs Guild title?

The only logo you can use in your title is the DMs Guild logo [found here]

Custom logos and other variations of existing logos are not allowed



Screen Shot 2018-01-30 at 12.13.23.png


The policy change, seen in the image above, was (oddly) announced in a private DM's Guild Fan Club Facebook group owned by David Russell. Fortunately EN World member MerricB screenshot some of the replies to questions.


DUwmiD4VAAA9gfu.jpg


DUwmttvV4AAY9ML.jpg


DUwm98wU8AA5hWy.jpg

("CCC" means "Con Created Content")


The policy will be applied for new products, but will not be enforced retroactively on existing products

DMs Guild is a popular way for fans to sell PDF content in exchange for a 50% royalty on sales of their product, along with an exclusivity agreement, and allows access to settings such as the Forgotten Realms. It's a model which has inspired a number of other publisher-led fan stores from companies like Monte Cook Games, Chaosium, even my own little EN Publishing.

Generally speaking, at a quick glance, most covers don't have much by way of personal branding - sometimes a small logo, or a line name like the Power Score RPG PDF shown below. One of the items below has D&D Beyond branding on it, and it would be interesting to see if the policy applies to that product. However, it does seem like this will make it more difficult for small companies or groups using different authors to build a following on the site; individual authors, on the other hand, should find it easier.



218782-thumb140.jpg
211941-thumb140.jpg
226194-thumb140.jpg
200486-thumb140.jpg


Last year, WotC announced a new policy where they promote a group of ten or so DMs Guild authors; these were called the "DMs Guild Adepts", who they give special attention to in marketing, podcasts, and so on, along with their own special gold branding logo. This was initially promoted as a way of sorting quality product from the thousands of items on the store.

OBS' Jason Bolte commented on the reasons for the change:

"There are a number of reasons for the change, and it’s something we’ve discussed internally for a while now. One impetus is to be consistent across all of our community creation platforms. Another reason is to have clearer rules that we can enforce given our existing resources.

The DMs Guild logo we provide is intended to satisfy a lot of the messaging that others logos would normally do. First, it signifies that the product is a member of the wonderful community that is the DMs Guild. Second, it signals that the product is for the Dungeons & Dragons game. We have provided it to this amazing group specifically for those reasons.

The problem comes with the other branding, which often trends toward copyright infringement or trademark violations. Variations on the Dungeons & Dragons logo, the D&D branding, other DMs Guild logos, etc are common on new titles coming into the site. As we see more and more permutations, the lines get fuzzier and grayer, and it’s difficult for us to keep up and enforce. And since we’re dealing with intellectual property, branding, and trademarks in a retail setting, there are a number of reasons for us to find clear and enforceable rules for creators both old and new.

So those are some of the many reasons a for the change in policy. We are always evaluating the site and watching its evolution, and we will continue to update our policies as the site grows and the community it makes more and more excellent content."


I've added some more information from the private Facebook group, since this information will be useful to anybody who uses the DMs Guild. Answers below are from OBS employees Jason Bolte and Matt McElroy.

  • Can a text brand be included? "...yes, text is still fine, as long it does not approach branded text." (I'm not sure what that means).
  • Is the logo mandatory? "We’re still heavily encouraging that people use that logo. It’s not mandatory at this time, but we will evaluate that policy as well"
  • Does this only apply to community created content, or to Con-Created Content? "It only applies to community created content"
  • Are the red "D&D sashes" OK? "I’d say they’re ok as long as they’re not used as branding. Namely, don’t try to emulate or make a spinoff of WotC logos. If you use the sashes as a byline, that should be fine (Written by xxx).... In my estimation, as long as the red sash is not used in a stylistic manner to promote a brand, it is fine. Once you start using it as a brand, then there are issues. If you don’t know if you’re using it correctly, then ask!"
  • Is this actually new? "There has never been a time were D&D logos have been allowed on the covers. The only logo that was allowed before today is the same one that was only allowed previously. What we’re attempting to make more clear is that logos like “Bob’s Gaming Company” are not allowed on covers."
  • Followup to above: "Basically the rules for community content have always been there. I was just bad at enforcing them and the FAQ wasn’t helpful, it actually made things more confusing. Adventurers League is not part of the community content program and has its own templates, rules and administration."
  • About Fantasy Grounds. "FG logo is allowed on FG titles, we’re going to add a section to the FAQ linking to the FG section of the FAQ and clarifying that."

Florian Emmerich asked about the product depicted below. OBS' Jason Bolte confirmed that "If you’re asking about the P. B. Publishing Presents part, then yes, that would be would qualify as what we don’t want on the cover".

225640.png





[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Save[/FONT]
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Though I have products on RPGNow/DTRpg, I have no DM Guild products. I am curious. What defines the "cover"? Is the little thumbnail you see on the catalog paged at DMG the cover or is it just the first page of the PDF? Can ICONs be placed on the thumbnail that don't appear on the actual PDF cover?

I assume they would call what I'm saying "trying to circumvent the spirit of the rules" but the letter of the rules are unclear about what a cover is.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

As it stands, this change will not affect my own products. As others have pointed out, the only branding on my covers is my name (which happens to be a pseudonym). And when I create collaborative projects (such as the Player's Companion), I don't list names on the cover at all. So this announcement has not affected my publishing plans - I am still committed to creating on the DMs Guild.

I'll take OBS at face value when they say this is to help them police copyright infringing logos. There has certainly been some branding that sails close to the wind of copyright infringement in the past. If there is a darker purpose, I can't see it.

The main negative is that people like Chris from "Loot the Room" are likely to leave the platform, since their logo is a big, big part of their brand strategy. I'll be very sorry to see them go, though I'm hopeful they will find great success selling through their own portals and also DTRPG. And they may blaze a trail for future creators to explore the OGL and even (gasp!) other gaming systems.

The main challenge for established DMs Guild authors who want to switch platforms is how to take their audience with them.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
As it stands, this change will not affect my own products. As others have pointed out, the only branding on my covers is my name (which happens to be a pseudonym). And when I create collaborative projects (such as the Player's Companion), I don't list names on the cover at all. So this announcement has not affected my publishing plans - I am still committed to creating on the DMs Guild.

I'll take OBS at face value when they say this is to help them police copyright infringing logos. There has certainly been some branding that sails close to the wind of copyright infringement in the past. If there is a darker purpose, I can't see it.

The main negative is that people like Chris from "Loot the Room" are likely to leave the platform, since their logo is a big, big part of their brand strategy. I'll be very sorry to see them go, though I'm hopeful they will find great success selling through their own portals and also DTRPG. And they may blaze a trail for future creators to explore the OGL and even (gasp!) other gaming systems.

The main challenge for established DMs Guild authors who want to switch platforms is how to take their audience with them.

One question. If a logo is okay anywhere else in the book except on the cover, wouldn't that still infringe copyright?

That's why I don't take them at their word. It just doesn't add up.
 

DLIMedia

David Flor, Darklight Interactive
It would make more sense to me that they did this if they weren't getting a percentage of every sale... they've C&Ded many people in the past (myself included) for that same reason.

What I don't quite understand is, if they are already getting 50% of the revenue on everything sold on the site, and everything on the site can ONLY be sold on the site, why does the branding matter? Or is this simply because they expect people to gravitate towards the official WotC products because WotC doesn't have to share that revenue with anyone?
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
It would make more sense to me that they did this if they weren't getting a percentage of every sale... they've C&Ded many people in the past (myself included) for that same reason.

What I don't quite understand is, if they are already getting 50% of the revenue on everything sold on the site, and everything on the site can ONLY be sold on the site, why does the branding matter? Or is this simply because they expect people to gravitate towards the official WotC products because WotC doesn't have to share that revenue with anyone?

The only guess I have is that they are hoping to reduce the risk of liability if anything ever does come up from copyright infringement. The rules definitely don't seem designed to prevent it. Perhaps deter it (less incentive to copyright infringy that really awesome logo you found?) Perhaps it's also to deter detection by burying the infringment out of sight except for those that buy product?
 

The truth is that some logos have been designed to mimic existing logos - mostly ones already owned by WOTC. I can see that this sort of thing puts WOTC and OBS in a bit of a bind. Do they tap individual people on the shoulder (and be the bad guy), or do they just put a blanket ban on logos and avoid the argument?
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
The truth is that some logos have been designed to mimic existing logos - mostly ones already owned by WOTC. I can see that this sort of thing puts WOTC and OBS in a bit of a bind. Do they tap individual people on the shoulder (and be the bad guy), or do they just put a blanket ban on logos and avoid the argument?

But they aren't banning logos. They are banning logos on the cover. Logos apparently can still be used anywhere else in the book.
 

But they aren't banning logos. They are banning logos on the cover. Logos apparently can still be used anywhere else in the book.
True - and i agree that this doesn't quite add up. It may just be pragmatism, as the cover is very public, while the inside is not (or not easily accessible).
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
True - and i agree that this doesn't quite add up. It may just be pragmatism, as the cover is very public, while the inside is not (or not easily accessible).

Yea, As of right now that would appear to be the most likely reason. If it is let's hope they don't admit it. Honestly I think most of us are going to be fine with them banning logos on the cover if that's the reason for it.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
It would make more sense to me that they did this if they weren't getting a percentage of every sale... they've C&Ded many people in the past (myself included) for that same reason.

What I don't quite understand is, if they are already getting 50% of the revenue on everything sold on the site, and everything on the site can ONLY be sold on the site, why does the branding matter? Or is this simply because they expect people to gravitate towards the official WotC products because WotC doesn't have to share that revenue with anyone?
My guess is that they don't want people to build up a brand strong enough to survive being taken off the DMsG.

The purpose of the DMsG is to provide support for the D&D brand; to allow WotC to not have to make too much low-profit adventure material even though that is integral to the success of any ttrpg game line.

Not to create potential new Paizos.

Again; my personal guess only.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top